Partly allowed

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Avinash

Rajasthan HC29 Jan 2024CMA/1125/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance appeal challenging quantum of compensation in a motor accident death claim. The court held there was no evidence the deceased practised as a lawyer and computed income at Rs.6,474/- per month as minimum wages for a skilled labourer, reducing compensation to Rs.16,16,792/- with interest at 6%.

What did the court decide?

Award modified; insurer liable to pay Rs.16,16,792/- minus amounts already paid, with 6% interest from claim filing date, 9% if not deposited within two months.

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt… — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:4492]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1125/2023

¶4

The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Office At 1St Floor, 74-A, Bhati N Plaza, Main Pal Road, Jodhpur.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Avinash W/o Late Shri Rahul Kumar, Aged About 27 Years, By Caste Garasiya, Resident Of Dingavari Khurd, Gram Panchayat Lamba Haldu, Tehsil Kotda, District Udaipur.

¶8

Sushri Chhavi D/o Late Shri Rahul Kumar, Aged About 10 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Respodent No. 1, By Caste Garasiya, Resident Of Dingavari Khurd, Gram Panchayat Lamba Haldu, Tehsil Kotda, District Udaipur.

¶9

Sushri Kanak D/o Late Shri Rahul, Aged About 3 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Respodent No. 1, By Caste Garasiya, Resident Of Dingavari Khurd, Gram Panchayat Lamba Haldu, Tehsil Kotda, District Udaipur.

¶10

Mugla Ram S/o Shri Lala, Aged About 58 Years, By Caste Garasiya, Resident Of Dingavari Khurd, Gram Panchayat Lamba Haldu, Tehsil Kotda, District Udaipur.

¶11

Smt. Leela W/o Shri Mugla Ram, Aged About 54 Years, By Caste Garasiya, Resident Of Dingavari Khurd, Gram Panchayat Lamba Haldu, Tehsil Kotda, District Udaipur.

¶12

Javed Khan S/o Shri Sadik Khan, By Caste Musalman, Resident Of Khori Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur.

¶13

Ram Avtar Lomod S/o Shri Kalyan Sahay Lomod, By Caste Gurjar, Resident Khori,tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

[2024:RJ-JD:4492] (2 of 6)

¶16

[CMA-1125/2023]

¶17

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Leela Dhar Khatri
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. R.S. Mankad

¶18

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶19

Judgment

¶20

29/01/2024

¶21

The appeal is listed in admission category. Learned counsel for the claimants has put in appearance in Caveat. Only the quantum of compensation being under challenge, service on respondent Nos.6 & 7 (driver and owner of the vehicle) is dispensed with at the request of learned counsel for the appellant.

¶22

On the request of both the counsels, the matter has been heard finally.

¶23

The present misc. appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 25.04.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Udaipur in MAC Case No.902/2021 whereby an award of Rs.29,07,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 30.06.2021, has been awarded in favour of the claimants.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company raised only one ground before this Court pertaining to the income of the deceased. Counsel submitted that there was no evidence available on record to prove that the deceased was working as a lawyer, as admittedly, no document pertaining to the deceased professing as a lawyer has been placed on record by the claimants. Learned counsel further submitted that the FIR as lodged by the owner of the vehicle mentioned the deceased to be his driver and hence it is clear on record that the deceased was working as a driver and

[2024:RJ-JD:4492]

[CMA-1125/2023]

(3 of 6)

not as a lawyer and therefore, the income, if any, of the deceased could have been computed only on the basis of wages provided for skilled labour which was Rs.7,385/- per month on the date of the accident.

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that AW1, Mrs. Avinash Garasiya, wife of the deceased was even cross-examined on this aspect however, no suggestion was put to her that the deceased was not a lawyer. In the alternate, learned counsel submitted that even if the income of the deceased is to be computed on the basis of he being a driver, the same ought to be computed @ Rs.8,000/- per month as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Kala Devi Vs.Bhagwan Das Chauhan; (2015) 2 SCC 771.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. So far as the factum of the deceased professing as a lawyer is concerned, the learned Tribunal also did not find the same to be proved on record however, keeping into consideration the educational qualification of the deceased and his being enrolled as a lawyer, concluded his income to be Rs,1,50,000/- per annum. 7. AW1 Avinash Garasiya, wife of deceased Rahul Kumar Garasiya, in her cross-examination, deposed as under:

¶31

“oDr nq?kZVuk esjs ifr xkMh pykdj vk jgs FksA xkMh gseUr iqj”kkuh ds ekfydkuk FkhA tc esjs ifr dk dksbZ dke gksrk Fkk rks esjs ifr xkMh ysdj tkrs FksA ?kVuk ds laca/k esa iqfyl esa lwpuk bukok xkMh ds ekfyd us nh FkhA xkMh dk ekfyd gseUr iqj”kkuh FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ,QvkbZvkj esa D;k fy[kk ;g eq>s ekyqe ugha gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd dfFkr nq?kZVuk jkgqy dh xyrh ls dkfjr gqbZ gksA

(4 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:4492]

[CMA-1125/2023]

eSa vkSj esjs ifr “kknh ls gh lkFk esa jg jgs FksA eSaus odkyr laca/kh vk;&O;; dk fglkc&fdrkc eSaus is”k ugha fd;k gSA og odkyr dk dke fdl odhy ds lkFk djrs Fks ;g eq>s ekyqe ugha gS og vdsys gh dk;Z djrs FksA odkyr mUgkasus “kk;n 2019&20 esa mRrh.kZ dh FkhA ftl vnkyr esa esjs ifr odkyr dk dke djrs Fks og is”kh Mk;jh eSaus is”k ugha dh gSA mudh dsl Mk;jh FkhA ;g dguk xyr gS fd oDr nq?kZVuk og okgu pkyd dh ukSdjh djrs FksA”

¶36

Mr. Hemant Pursani, owner of the vehicle, in the First Information Report as lodged, specifically stated that his driver Rahul Kumar Garasiya informed him about the accident on mobile. In the complete FIR, he mentioned Rahul Kumar Garasiya to be his driver.

¶37

A joint reading of the FIR as well as the statement of AW1 makes it crystal clear that there is nothing on record to show/prove that the deceased was professing as a lawyer. The fact of Mr. Hemant Pursani being the owner of the vehicle has been specifically admitted by the wife of the deceased and Mr. Hemant Pursani, the owner, has stated the deceased to be his driver. Therefore, the finding as arrived at by the learned Tribunal to the effect that although it is not proved on record that the deceased was professing as a lawyer but keeping into consideration his qualification, it can be assumed that he earned a minimum amount of Rs.1,50,000/- per annum, being based on no material evidence, cannot be affirmed.

¶38

On consideration of the evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the income of the deceased be computed on the basis of the minimum wages payable to a ‘driver’ at that point of time. The minimum wages for a skilled labour as

(5 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:4492]

[CMA-1125/2023]

prescribed by the State was Rs.6,474/- per month in the year 2021. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to compute the amount of compensation qua loss of income @Rs.6,474/- per month.

¶43

So far as the judgment in Kala Devi’s case (supra) as relied upon by learned counsel for the claimants is concerned, the income @ Rs.8,000/- per month was considered by the Court on basis of the prevalent wages as prescribed by the State of Haryana at that point of time. The same cannot be termed to be a ratio laid down and hence, the income @ Rs.8,000/- per month as argued by the learned counsel for the claimants cannot be considered. The prevalent wages by the State of Rajasthan at that point of time for a ‘skilled labour’ was Rs.6,474/- per month and the same is considered for computation of income/compensation. 11. The amount awarded under all the other heads being not under challenge and there being no cross-objection preferred on behalf of the claimants, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

¶44

The amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants hence, is as under :

¶45

1.	Income per month (after adding future prospects (40%) and deduction towards personal and living expenses(1/4th in the monthly income of Rs. 6,474/-)	Rs. 6,798/-
2.	Loss of Annual Income (as per the age of the deceased, multiplier of 17).	6,798 x 12 x 17 = Rs.13,86,792/-
3.	Under the head of ‘loss of estate’	Rs.15,000/-
4.	Under the head of ‘consortium’ (Rs.40,000/- each)	Rs.2,00,000/-
5.	Under the head of ‘Funeral expenses’	Rs.15,000/-

(6 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:4492]

[CMA-1125/2023]

Total amount of compensation Rs.16,16,792/-

¶50

In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed . The impugned award dated 25.04.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Udaipur in MAC Case No.902/2021 is modified to the extent that now the appellant Insurance Company shall be liable to pay Rs.16,16,792/- to the claimants minus the amount already paid. The said amount shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

¶51

The award amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company with the Tribunal within a period of two months from today failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization.

¶52

Stay petition and the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶53

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶54

29-Vij/Devanshi/-

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Avinash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Avinash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Unkar Vs Anybody

I.C.I.C.I.Lombard G.I.C.Ltd. Vs Smt.Shanti and Ors.

Icici Lombard G.I.C.Ltd. Vs Smt.Narda and Ors.

Rajkumar @ Raju Kumawat Vs Chhalla

I.C.I.C.I.Lombard G.I.C.Ltd. Vs Rajendra Kumar and Ors.

Icici Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Purn Ram and Ors.